I've done two panels since I've been here at Aspen. One was interviewing Andrew, and the other was interviewing Larry Wilmore. I'll get you guys video, as soon as possible. It's funny because I spend so much time arguing here, but I'm actually much more comfortable asking questions. Here's a clip of Andrew discussing his time as a blogger.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I actually watched this clip on AS's blog. It was nice to see what he looks and sounds like.
I look forward to seeing your videos soon.
Once before when I raised the objection that Andrew is not actually a blogger because he does not permit comments, a commenter stated that there was a vote, and people voted that Andrew would not permit comments.
I can't imagine why such a thing would happen, but I wasn't there, so maybe there was some reason.
In any case, I submit that it's not blogging without comments. In Andrew's remarks above, he slips up at one point and refers to blogging as a "conversation." That's where the comments would come in, of course, if he allowed them. But for the most part he characterizes himself as "broadcasting," which more accurately reflects his commentless activity, which I say again is not blogging.
However ineffably brilliant the blogger might be, the brilliant blog post usually prompts some additionally brilliant comments, making the blog process more valuable than "broadcasting."
I don't think this is true. I say this as a blogger, and a reader. You should consider how much work it takes to actually maintain a comments section. Andrew's readership is roughly ten times mine. There is simply no way I could maintain a useful comments section with that many people weighing in.
Moreover, he's put to a vote at least once. His own readers rejected the idea. I'm not sure what else there is to do.
Well, I find myself in the odd position of defending Andrew Sullivan on this one (not a hater, just have some strong disagreements with some things he's written).
I was one of the readers that voted "no" on comments on Andrew's blog. I think it would have been utter chaos. As TNC notes, he has ten times the readership and has spent a lot of time on TV offering some opinions that completely infuriate both the left AND the right. I guarantee it would devolve into a shouting match within days, including some of the foulest homophobia you could imagine. Just look at the comments about Andrews on some of the right-wing blogs sometime.
It's true that it is not strictly a conversation, but he does appear to look at a lot of his e-mail and posts his "Dissent of the Day" from those who disagree with him - sometimes defending himself and sometimes letting it stand without comment.
If Andrew's readers don't want it, I can't argue with that, but I do reject the claim that the size of his readership makes having a comment section impossible. He could easily designate some moderators to delete gratuitously offensive posts and ban the posters. He could also set up a self-policing system similar to what, for example, Yahoo! Finance's stock message boards have: commenters rank each others' comments with starts, and if your comments average rating drops too low, it gets deleted. Readers can also decide just to view, say, the 5-star comment. In short, there are ways to manage this if his readers wanted comments.
I also voted "no" on Andrew's poll on whether to allow comments. On most blogs, comments don't seem to add a lot to the conversation, and things seem to quickly spiral down into snark and name-calling.
But the overall quality of comments here is pretty good. I'm impressed that TNC steps in and knocks heads together once in a while. The culture of civility he's insisted upon has really helped the comments, it's more like a conversation than a shouting match.
I definitely agree. I am a fairly faithful reader of Sullivan's blog, and I was actually made aware of TNC through the Dish. This is my first time commenting on TNC, but this is the one of the only blogs I actually turn to read the comments section as well as the author's opinion. Very nice job on the part of TNC and the commenters (generally of course).
I stand partly corrected. One thing seems truer than ever, though: blogs with comments are more valuable than those without. In the present example, I got enlightened instead of grumbling eternally about Andrew's near-commentlessness.
The point about comment management I acknowledge, but there are more than a few large-scale bloggers, some who are at least as titanic as Andrew, who have decided to allow comments for what they are worth. Once you become titanic in the blogosphere, I guess you have the right to allow comments or not, but if you pick "not," you lose something.
Without endorsing chaos, may I say that perhaps ugliness has its place in comment strings as well? I have learned a lot from discussions of displays of racism in comments on Ta-Nehisi Coates's blog. Sometimes we see a little of ourselves in the wrong things that other people do, and sometimes we learn from that. Alternatively, efforts in commentary to explain why someone is wrong can be very worthwhile. Homophobic noise isn't valuable, but latent homophobia in comments could play out the same way.
Thanks for the compliment, but again, you have to consider that my comments section is heavily, heavily moderated. I don't know another political blogger, with this kind of audience, who really does this much modding. Now, you can make of that what you will. Some people don't mind a 300-comment thread that devolves into name-calling, with the occasional insight inside. I'm not one of them. I don't find those threads interesting at all.
One thing seems truer than ever, though: blogs with comments are more valuable than those without.
No. It really, really depends on the commenters, the quality of the comments, and the degree of moderation. Comments work well here because the commenters are intelligent and behaved, the comments are usually good and reflective, and most importantly, T-NC visibly participates in and moderates the comments. He also brings down the ban hammer quickly and publicly. I appreciate that.
Andrew has held at least two votes about whether or not he should have comments. I voted NO in both of them.
If Andrew were to allow comments, he'd probably need at least 1 or 2 full-time moderators and the comments would have to be closed outside of their working hours. Who are some of those other "large-scale bloggers" who allow commenters? If they don't heavily, heavily moderate their comments, then all you have is just a large-scale demonstration of the Greater Internet F---wad Theory.
This is the only blog I have found where the comments are consistently worth reading.
I definitely agree. I am a fairly faithful reader of Sullivan's blog, and I was actually made aware of TNC through the Dish. This is my first time commenting on TNC, but this is the one of the only blogs I actually turn to read the comments section as well as the author's opinion. Very nice job on the part of TNC and the commenters (generally of course).
Oops and i obviously goofed it up by posting twice. Sorry.
Well, now you've done it. Double post. See what I mean about how fast it turns into chaos????
//sarcasm off//
"This is the only blog I have found where the comments are consistently worth reading."
This. I don't think I've ever been able to read through entire comment threads anywhere else.
As a previous commenter stated a couple of weeks ago - "Come for the TNC, stay for the comments." This blog has good, sometimes great threads. Most blog comment threads are cesspools...
Yeah, comments are a huge plus if they're managed well and if the community that grows up around a blog supports a healthy comment-thread culture. Making Light and Marginal Revolution both have very good comment threads, for example, and Megan's doing a much better job keeping her comments in order these days (she used to do very little moderation, and it showed).